The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

Click to expand...

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim CountriesTrump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim CountriesThe executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.Trump border policy: Who's affected?Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days

There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees

And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama

Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Click to expand...

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

Fox- I appreciate the chance to discuss this in a rational forum at USMB. I deleted the other parts of your post, not to censor you, but to winnow out your opinion on who Trump is to get back to the ban.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in.

You are not supporting this claim. Nor are you really responding to my post. I pointed out that the actual news articles after Trump announced his bans generally did report it accurately- and that the news articles themselves didn't call it a 'racial' thing. I posted two citations with examples to show my point.

Generally the news cited what Trump actually said- accurately reporting what Trump said was the intention of his ban. Now many people in the United States disagreed with Trump- accurately also mentioning Trump's campaign rhetoric where he promised to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States- and the news often quoted those people- which is just covering both sides of the story.

I have mentioned my doubts about the ban itself in earlier posts- but I think it would be better for the discussion if we stayed away from policy disputes- and instead focused on the topic- which is generally 'fake news'.

So was there 'Fake News' generated about the ban? Yes it was called by many a Muslim ban- but that came either from editorial pieces- which of course are not the news- or from those who opposed Trump's policies- and whom the newspapers quoted and reported. That doesn't make it "Fake News".

You have made a claim that: But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.

Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Click to expand...

Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

But you really weren't responding to my post.

You claimed that the media:But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

And I said:

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

Click to expand...

I am not going to make this yet another tiresome thread of what President Trump said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean with a "Muslim ban". This thread is about how things are reported and whether that is in a way that is honest and ethical or whether it is in a way that is dishonest and unethical and therefore constitutes fake news.

Now if you frame a question in a specific way that relates to how things are reported and that can be evaluated based on actual media coverage, I will be happy to answer it or tell you I don't have an answer.

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim CountriesTrump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim CountriesThe executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.Trump border policy: Who's affected?Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days

There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees

And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama

Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Click to expand...

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in. And when it is dishonestly reported publicly, it becomes another example of fake news.

Fox- I appreciate the chance to discuss this in a rational forum at USMB. I deleted the other parts of your post, not to censor you, but to winnow out your opinion on who Trump is to get back to the ban.

For example they almost always harp on President Trump's Muslim ban as if that was a racist thing instead of accurately reporting it as a temporary ban intended to give us opportunity to weed the inevitable terrorists out of the groups coming in.

You are not supporting this claim. Nor are you really responding to my post. I pointed out that the actual news articles after Trump announced his bans generally did report it accurately- and that the news articles themselves didn't call it a 'racial' thing. I posted two citations with examples to show my point.

Generally the news cited what Trump actually said- accurately reporting what Trump said was the intention of his ban. Now many people in the United States disagreed with Trump- accurately also mentioning Trump's campaign rhetoric where he promised to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States- and the news often quoted those people- which is just covering both sides of the story.

I have mentioned my doubts about the ban itself in earlier posts- but I think it would be better for the discussion if we stayed away from policy disputes- and instead focused on the topic- which is generally 'fake news'.

So was there 'Fake News' generated about the ban? Yes it was called by many a Muslim ban- but that came either from editorial pieces- which of course are not the news- or from those who opposed Trump's policies- and whom the newspapers quoted and reported. That doesn't make it "Fake News".

You have made a claim that: But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, fake news is not necessarily made up news. You can be 100% accurate in reporting but if you report in a way to give the reader/audience a false impression, it then becomes fake news. To take one statement of context and made a huge deal out of it after many other statements significantly qualify that one is just plain dishonest. No honorable, ethical journalist would do it. Instead he/she should report that 'the President raised eyebrows today when he said (whatever)' but it should be noted that he subsequently expanded on the comment with qualifications of. . . .

Putting out the first sentence with no qualifications is accurate, but dishonest nevertheless. When there is a back story that provides context, it must always be included when we know that an extemporaneous statement is not what somebody likely intended.

It was like when President Obama said something to the effect that John McCain had not questioned his Muslim faith, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him, "your Christian faith" and then Obama corrected himself. Stephanopoulos knew Muslim faith is not what the President intended to say and he made sure that the statement did not become the story. That is responsible journalism.

Some who have never believed President Obama was a Christian might speculate on that as a Freudian slip and the unethical would even take the one comment out of its full context and present it that way. Honorable people, however, leave room for the fact that it was in inadvertent misspeak in an extemporaneous response.

Another example I think somebody already provided.

When a tired President Obama on the campaign trail quipped that he had visited 57 states with three or four more to go, honorable people might tease him a bit about it but understood that he simply misspoke. (He actually meant 27 states.) The media pretty much correctly did not make any big deal out of it because most of the media supported President Obama.

But when Sarah Palin misspoke and said North Korea when any honest person would know she meant South Korea, the media and pundits were vicious in their rush to condemn her as clueless, ignorant, uneducated, etc. etc. etc. And again their criticism was using an actual quote from her but dishonestly used it to attack and discredit Palin.

So you can be accurate and report an actual event but report it dishonestly and with malice. And in so doing it becomes fake news.

Click to expand...

Look I appreciate you giving me your thoughts on what is Fake News and what is not Fake News.

But you really weren't responding to my post.

You claimed that the media:But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

And I said:

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

You have some interesting opinions in your post- some of which I might dispute, some I might not- but if I go down that trail- it just leads away from my challenge to you.

You have made a claim- substantiate it.

Click to expand...

I am not going to make this yet another tiresome thread of what President Trump said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean with a "Muslim ban". This thread is about how things are reported and whether that is in a way that is honest and ethical or whether it is in a way that is dishonest and unethical and therefore constitutes fake news..

Click to expand...

Nor did I go into what Trump said- or what he did mean or didn't mean.

You made a very specific claim about the media that this entire thread really revolves around- you used the case of Trump's ban as an example- I didn't bring it up- you did.

Once again:
You claimed that the media:But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

And I said:

So far this appears to be only your unsubstantiated opinion. Personally I think it displays a bias on your part. Because of your terms 'most' and 'almost no mention'- AND because you left out the reason why so many considered this to be part of a bigger plan- Trump's own campaign rhetoric.

Your reply to my post doesn't seem to have anything to do with my post- because my post is challenging your claim. You haven't substantiated that most of the mainstream media claimed what you claimed. You have just asked us to accept your conclusion.

My challenge to you is frankly about the credibility of your claims in this entire thread. You the example I have focused in on is just one- but I am mystified why you won't address it.

You have made a very specific claim about an abuse by the media regarding a specific incident.

I didn't agree with you- and went back and found specific headlines that didn't agree with your claim.

IF you are unable to back up your claim that in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban

Then why should any of us accept any of your other unsubstantiated claims?

Good comment EvilEye, It truly is up to the news consumer. When it comes to news and understanding our world, it is important to continue to pay attention and get your news from multiple sources. Individual sources are usually corrected when they get it wrong or cross the line of objectivity (too egregiously) by themselves or media watchers. I usually do not blacklist major news sources when they get it wrong. If I get a half gallon of bad milk from Kroger, I do not stop shopping there forever and I do not give up milk, as it important to my diet. I do not assume they are trying to poison me, although I do sniff before I drink.

Good comment EvilEye, It truly is up to the news consumer. When it comes to news and understanding our world, it is important to continue to pay attention and get your news from multiple sources. Individual sources are usually corrected when they get it wrong or cross the line of objectivity (too egregiously) by themselves or media watchers. I usually do not blacklist major news sources when they get it wrong. If I get a half gallon of bad milk from Kroger, I do not stop shopping there forever and I do not give up milk, as it important to my diet. I do not assume they are trying to poison me, although I do sniff before I drink.

Click to expand...

But suppose during the year you shopped at Kroger's every week and in 25% of weeks you bought milk, the milk was bad. The next time you needed milk and needed it to be good, would you go to Krogers if you had someplace else to buy it?

I agree though that I don't stop reading/watching MSM just because they get so much wrong. But when they demonstrate obvious dishonest/biased reporting so often re certain topics, I do not rely on them for good information on those topics.

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Click to expand...

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

Click to expand...

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

The problem with news in this country is extremely serious. The press is the only defense we have against government corruption. With the press firmly and unabashedly on the side of the democrats, no one can trust them.

This leads to politicians on both sides of the isle being able to do as they please. On the right, they can do whatever they want and just claim it’s fake news. On the left they can make up anything they want to and IF the ever get caught, they simply move quickly on to the next made up thing.

In the end we get situations like in Roy Moore’s case. We don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Those who support him believe it’s a set up by the left and it could very well be since the left never has anyone call them to the carpet. They are above the law. The Moore supporters know that and it bolsters their belief in the conspiracy. Meanwhile, those on the left who get fed a steady diet of left wing slanted news don’t get to hear anything that doesn’t support the narrative about Moore.

What should have happened is the media should be non-partisan and lead the charge against corruption no matter what party they belong to. This would have kept the left honest and given the right news they can believe. Then Moore would be either never bothered or completely fucked depending on wether he’s guilty or not.

It’s terrible. The government is out of control and the people have no way to control them.

Click to expand...

Come on. There are better examples of media bias than Roy Moore.

For instance, how many human interest stories do you see on any news station or in any media about the good things or good people in the black and hispaniic communities? Unless its done by a black or hispanic source, you do not see the Hispanic kid who graduated from High School with honors, never with a criminal record, no gang membership, etc. Or the same with the black kid. But you will see any act of violence that goes in in these communities. You won't see the story about the black or hispanic civic group holding the fish fry raise money for something like you do in the white community. If we want to discus media bias, let's talk about legitimate cases. .

There has always been some dishonesty and incompetence in news reporting. The problem today is that the administration is characterizing anything they don't like as "fake news" and a significant proportion of the electorate is swallowing it whole.

Click to expand...

Wrong. 0bama whined about FOX all during his regime. The only difference here is that Trump is correct and 0bama was lying.

Click to expand...

I do believe that when we look at his record Obama was correct about how Fox portrayed his administration. To this point Trump is the on being dishonest abut the media.

Click to expand...

You think that because you listen to them. Nothing FOX said was untrue about Obama. Nearly everything the MSM says about Trump is untrue and easily proven untrue. They don't care, they hate Trump so much that they publish lies and don't care.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!